United States v. Courtney Boyd

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 3, 2026
• Docket: 25-6222
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6222 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/03/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6222

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

COURTNEY OMAR BOYD, a/k/a Omar,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (4:06-cr-00005-MSD-FBS-3)

Submitted: January 28, 2026 Decided: March 3, 2026

Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Courtney Omar Boyd, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6222 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/03/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Courtney Omar Boyd appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review the denial of a

compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Moody, 115 F.4th

304, 310 (4th Cir. 2024). “In doing so, we ensure that the district court has not acted

arbitrarily or irrationally, has followed the statutory requirements, and has conducted the

necessary analysis for exercising its discretion.” United States v. Brown, 78 F.4th 122, 127

(4th Cir. 2023) (citation modified).

“In analyzing a motion for compassionate release, district courts must determine:

(1) whether extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction; and (2) that

such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing

Commission.” United States v. Malone, 57 F.4th 167, 173 (4th Cir. 2023). “Only after

this analysis may the district court grant the motion if (3) the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

factors, to the extent they are applicable, favor release.” Id.

On appeal, Boyd challenges the district court’s conclusion that he failed to

demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for his release. We find no abuse of

discretion. The district court addressed each of Boyd’s arguments for his release and

specifically explained why they failed to amount to extraordinary and compelling reasons.

Furthermore, because the district court acted within its discretion in concluding that Boyd

failed to present extraordinary and compelling reasons, we reject his contention that the

court erred by declining to address the § 3553(a) factors.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-6222 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/03/2026 Pg: 3 of 3

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED